Home

 Articles

 Op-ed

 Authors

 FAQ

 Leaving Islam
 Library
 Gallery
 Comments
 Debates
  Links
 Forum

 

 

Few Facts for Islamic Apologists who Justify London Bombings

Potkin Azarmehr 

2005/09/07

Ken Livingston, the London Mayor, was not the only British Islamic apologist who implicitly tried to justify the London bombings by suggesting that "decades of western intervention in the Middle East and the Iraq war could have influenced the bombers.". I have heard many Islamic apologists who are poorly educated in Islam, state similar excuses. Knowingly or unknowingly these Islamic apologists serve to hearten the Islamic extremists.

A videotaped message from suicide bomber Mohammed Sadiq, who participated in the London bombings was aired on Al-Jazeera TV and contained a similar message:
"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world, and your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets, and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment, and torture of my people we will not stop this fight."

A person poorly educated in Islam may feel some sympathy after hearing such nonsense, but those of us who are better informed about Islam know otherwise.

Centuries before America was formed, and at the time of the Islam's prophet Mohammad, a Jewish tribe by the name of Bani-Quraiza were defeated by the Muslims in Arabia. The seven hundred (or according to other traditions, nine hundred) men were beheaded one by one and their bodies were thrown in a ditch by the direct orders of the prophet. Ali the fourth Khalifa of Muslim and the Imam of the Shiites and his uncle Zubair took turn in this butchery. 

Lets say only for argument's sake that this was a bad tribe. Lets say for arguments sake that the men of this tribe, every single one of them, deserved to be beheaded, and I am really stretching the assumptions here to say this. How on earth does any Muslim or any of their non-Muslim apologists explain as to why the women and the children of this tribe were sold as slaves? What is the justification of selling an infant of the Bani-Quraiza tribe as a slave despite whatever his father may have been responsible for?
What was the role of America and the West in justifying this atrocity??

When Iran was invaded by the Arabs and forced to accept Islam, the atrocities by the Arabs were too many to mention here. Lets just recount one of them in Istakhr; when the Arab warlord, ibn-Vaghas ordered the mills in the city to be run by the flowing blood of Iranian men, women and children and when the blood coagulated, he ordered boiling water to be poured so that the mills continue to run with the blood of Iranians. What was the reason for such atrocity? Just because Iranians did not want to become Muslims? Could not the Muslims, like other religions, just have sent their missionaries to spread the word? Why did Muslims have to commit such barbaric acts?
What was the role of America and the West in justifying this atrocity?

Lets now stretch our assumptions even further - beyond all reason and logic. Lets say all non-Muslims were evil and Islam was such a beautiful ideology that all those who did not convert deserved to be treated by inhumane brutality.

Lets forget what Muslims did to non-Muslims and examine what Arabs and Muslims did to each other. Not to any ordinary Al-Joe-ibn-ul-Bloggs Muslim but to the grand-son of the prophet, Hossein and his followers.

Hossein, and seventy-two of his followers were trapped in Karbala, on the way to Kufeh. Not by Iranians or non-Muslims but by Arabs and Muslims themselves. In some cases members of the opposing sides were even related to each other!

Once again no man, woman or child was spared, not even six-month infants. The mother of Ali Asghar, Imam Hossein's six month-old child, requested the Imam to ask the Arabs and Muslims on the other side for some water as the infant had been thirsty for three days. The Imam held the child in his arms and brought him in front of the rival army. Instead of providing him with water, Hurmala bin Kahil on orders of Omar bin Sa'ad, shot the baby with an arrow, killing him in the arms of the prophet's grand-son.
The event of Karbala happened in 680 AD, more than a millennium before America existed!

To suggest that the brutality of Islamic militancy is the result of American and Western aggressive policies in the Middle East is just preposterous for those of us who are aware of the Islamic history and teachings.

On top of all this lets not forget there have been other nations who have suffered the aggression of rival nations. Lets start with Iran. Just because the Arabs invaded us and killed our people, did any Iranian ever decide to go and blast a bus full of innocent Arab women and children?

The people of Tibet have been subjugated to the aggression of the Chinese. Did anyone ever hear a Tibetan go to China and blow up a Chinese train and slay innocent Chinese civilians?

The people of East Europe were subjugated to the Soviet aggression and interference for most part of the second half of the twentieth century, can anyone give me examples of a Czech, Slovak, Pole, or a Hungarian who decided to blow up innocent Russian women and children in the Moscow underground in retaliation for the great injustice the people of East Europe suffered?

The Western Islamic apologists like Ken Livingston or the Trotskyist Lindsey German who utter out such nonsense to justify the action of suicide bombers are not just acting out of sheer ignorance on the subject matter, they are indeed playing a very dangerous game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge
 

    copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.